Helen Polley (Tasmania, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I take that on board. Using Mr Abbott's correct title I will re-state that he was prepared to pay whatever price it was going to take to get on the government benches.

But let's talk about this MPI. As a signatory to the 1951 United Nations convention and the 1967 protocol, Australia, the USA and Canada are the three highest recipients of humanitarian refugees in the world and have been for many years. This government is no different at all. The Howard government's legislative provision section 198A(3) was tested in the Federal Court, which endorsed offshore processing of asylum seekers. The High Court has reinterpreted the legislation and although we the government are disappointed we accept the High Court's decision. The government has already acknowledged that legislative change would be needed to put offshore processing beyond doubt. That is what our publicly released legal advice shows.

The Labor government has accepted that there are three issues: first, to break the people-smuggling business model you need to have a significant disincentive in place and take away the product that they are trying to sell; second, you need an orderly migration program to consider all humanitarian claims; and, third, we need acceptance of genuine humanitarian refugees in line with our long-term commitment. Of these issues, the Australian government has a very positive position on the acceptance of humanitarian refugees. There can be no question that this will continue, and the increase to 14,750 signals that this is so.

But the government is committed to breaking the people-smuggling trade. We are committed to deterring people from taking these dangerous trips in boats that are rarely seaworthy. We are concerned about their welfare. We are concerned about the women, children and men who set sail for a better life. We are committed to orderly migration programs. To break the people-smuggling trade an adequate deterrent is needed. If this were not the case why would the coalition have resorted to the Pacific solution? The coalition has always supported offshore processing of asylum seekers but, in keeping with their mantra in opposition, they are about opposing, opposing and opposing.

So, what is this motion about? It is about the fact that they are unable to accept the harm done to refugees on Nauru. Ninety-five per cent of the people were resettled to Australia and New Zealand, many suffering from serious mental conditions. They were unable to accept that the cost of reopening Nauru would be about $1 billion over four years, and that does not include the inevitable infrastructure costs. I can remember pictures of Tony Abbott at Nauru looking into a classroom pretending it was a detention centre. We know, and so does the opposition, that the processing centre in Nauru is not available for use. There is no offshore processing centre ready for use in Nauru. That is a fact. And is there anything on Nauru that would be ready for use to process 200 or 300 people? The processing centre was dismantled and the remaining infrastructure given to the people of Nauru. That is a fact. While Nauru signed the instruments of access to the refugee convention in June this year, it does not currently have legislation for determining refugee status determination and it has no experience in undertaking refugee status assessments. Nauru is isolated, and, with redevelopment, its costs would be very expensive. The opposition have been briefed by officials. Mr Abbott knows that Nauru will fail. It is not just us providing the briefing to Mr Abbott and the opposition; it is the officials, who have made it very clear that Nauru will fail. Nauru will not stop the boats. The government is committed to the Malaysian solution. This, combined with a commitment to Manus Island, will achieve the outcome that this government is looking for. The message will be: if you take a boat to Australia, you will be returned to Malaysia and processed with the 90,000 other asylum seekers and refugees waiting there. Malaysia willingly entered into this agreement, acting in good faith. The UNHCR has repeatedly said the govern­ment's Malaysian transfer arrangement was workable. The UNHCR was engaged and consulted throughout the process by Australia and Malaysia and very much helped to shape the final arrangement.

Christmas Island is an important immigration facility for this government. It also provides significant benefits for the local community, including improved infrastructure and significant employment opportunities. Meanwhile, we have Mr Abbott flopping all over the place, flip-flopping as usual. Over the last week he committed to an act of good faith, then ruled it in and then ruled it out: 'I am not ruling anything in and I am not ruling anything out.' Who does that remind me of? This change in attitude towards working positively and constructively was welcomed, but what do we find? We find, as usual, Mr Abbott going back on his word in an article in the Conversationtitled 'The vexed question of onshore processing and possible civil unrest':

If we go back to 2007 when then Immigration Minister Andrews targeted Africans, particularly Sudanese, as impossible to assimilate, that caused a significant drop in public support, particularly in Victoria, towards the settlement of refugees.

It wasn’t the refugees who caused it, it was the public statements of hostility from leading political figures. As it turns out African refugees (rarely if ever boat arrivals) have proven to be generally law abiding, hard working and passionately attached to the Australia that has given them the precious gift of freedom.

I could go on and on, but what I want to put on the record is that this government is a compassionate government. We will treat refugees with respect. We will ensure that in whatever measures this government takes—and the Malaysian solution is part of that—we will endeavour to do all that we can to stop the boats. Those opposite would not accept anything this government puts forward on this issue. (Time expired)